Indiana leaders want to enshrine marriage discrimination

Within minutes of the Supreme Court announcing the decision in Windsor v. Holder overturning the Defense of Marriage Act restrictions on federal recognition of marriage, Indiana House Speaker Bosma and Senate President David Long declared a need for a constitutional amendment to forever tie the hands of the Indiana General Assembly on the issue of same-sex families and marriage equality in Indiana. Such was the threat to marriage in Indiana that Gov. Mike Pence (and his staff) even squelched all dissent on his Facebook page, when Hoosiers tried to voice opposition to this renewed attack on LGBT families.

Many would argue that civil unions or some other arrangement would be the "same thing" with benefits and protections for families. While I would argue that this is essentially "separate but equal," I would also point out that the second line of the proposed amendment HJR6 says, "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized." No marriage, no civil unions, no protections whatsoever or whatever the courts decide this might mean.

This means the legislature's hands (as well as the court's) would be tied for the next generations. It seems like the tide of history is pulling against that course. Of course, Indiana politicians seem to want to ensure that Indiana is the last state in the union to enshrine marriage discrimination, just as the rest of the country (and world) are moving away from it.

Randy Studt

Lafayette

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Indiana leaders want to enshrine marriage discrimination

Within minutes of the Supreme Court announcing the decision in Windsor v. Holder overturning the Defense of Marriage Act restrictions on federal recognition of marriage, Indiana House Speaker Bosma